Photo: Earthworks Urban Farm, a project of Capuchin Soup Kitchen

DETROIT‘S URBAN AGRICULTURE ORDINANCE

DETROIT’S URBAN AGRICULTURE ORDI- NANCE REQUIRED THE OF DETROIT TO NEGOTIATE OVER STATE-LEVEL LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS, IN WHICH THE LARGE-SCALE FARMING INTERESTS

Detroit HAD A MAJOR STAKE, SO AS TO HAVE THE UNITED STATES AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ITS ORDINANCE. DETROIT’S EXPERIENCE ILLUS- TRATES THE PIVOTAL ROLE PLAYED BY INDIVIDU- ALS WITH LEGITIMACY IN BOTH PLANNING POLICY CIRCLES AND THE FOOD GROWING COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THE NECESSITY OF ALTERING THE POLICY PROCESS TO ENABLE PARTICIPATION OF ACTORS WITH DIVERGENT VIEWS.

62 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

In the second half of the 20th century, the City tively with swathes of vacant publicly-owned of Detroit in the US state of experi- land and abandoned lots. The culmination of a enced severe economic and social decline. The fnancial crisis that had efectively been brew- protracted collapse of the motor industry from ing65 for 60 years came in 2013 when Detroit, the late 1950s onwards disproportionally im- then under emergency administration and pacted the city’s African-American residents, $20 billion in debt, fled for bankruptcy; it ex- who were already sufering severe discrimi- ited bankruptcy in December 2014, leaving city nation via segregation and housing policies. leaders in charge of a long-term restructuring Racial unrest subsequently rose, culminating process. in the race riots of 1967. Many afuent white residents fed the violence, resulting in home Within the context of long-term social and eco- and business — including the nomic struggle, a community farming movement shuttering of food retailers. By the 2000s, De- has taken root in the city’s neglected, mainly Af- troit’s population had decreased from around rican-American, neighbourhoods, and prolifer- 2 million to less than 700,000 (U.S. Census Bu- ated since the early 2000s66 (White, 2011). The reau, 2010) and every major chain supermar- movement has aimed to use farming as a means ket grocery store in the city had closed (Zenk to improve the urban environment, foster social et al., 2005; Smith & Hurst, 2007). Vast areas cohesion, and increase access to healthy food. of city land became vacant, the blighted urban With 35 square miles of vacant city-owned land, environment bred crime, and the city’s remain- there is huge potential for food production proj- ing predominantly black residents sufered ects of all kinds and sizes. disproportionally high rates of unemployment, diet-related disease, food insecurity, and other City policy has played a role in supporting ur- injustices including, ultimately, lower life ex- ban farming in Detroit. First, in 2008 the City of pectancy (Gallagher, 2007). Detroit adopted a food security policy drawn up by the Detroit Black Community Food Secu- With fewer tax-paying residents, Detroit has rity Network67 that featured urban agriculture been starved of revenues and has struggled to as one of eight work areas towards ensuring maintain social services — let alone deal efec- food security for all residents68, in the context

85. Detroit’s fortunes were slightly more positive between 1994 and 2001, during a bout of urban revival under then-Mayor Dennis Archer.

86. Detroit has a long history of food growing. In the 1890s the ‘Potato Patch Plan’ sought to put poor residents to work growing food in vacant lots (Levenston, n.d.); and between 1975 and 2002 the City operated the Farm-A-Lot scheme, which provided residents with seeds and access to publicly-owned lots on which to grow them (Greenbaum, 2014). Since Farm-A-Lot ended, Keep Growing Detroit’s Garden Resource Program grew from supporting 80 gardens in 2004 to 1400 gardens and farms in 2015 (Sands, 2015).

67. The Detroit Black Community Food Security Network is a not-for-proft organization established in 2006 to address food insecurity within the City’s Black community and to ensure that the majority African American population participates in and leads the food movement locally. It was the frst African American organization of its kind in the US. Its leader, Malik Yakini, is a widely respected activist who helped create the Detroit Food Policy Council and was its frst Chair.

68. The other seven work areas in the food security policy are: access to quality food; hunger and malnutrition; impacts/efects of an inadequate diet; citizen education; economic injustice in the food system; the role of schools and other public institutions; and emergency response. The policy also recommended the formation of the Detroit Food Policy Council, a monitoring and advisory body that was duly created in 2009, with 21 members from across the food system and city government (from the Mayor’s Ofce, City Council, and the Department of Health and Wellness Promotion).

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 63 DETROIT

FIGURE 9 – AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC LAND IN DETROIT

71,836 properties surveyed

STRUCTURES VS LOTS STRUCTURE CONDITION STRUCTURE OCCUPANCY

Good : 5,759 Possibly occupied : 785 Fair : 4,698 Partially occupied : 12 Structures : 15,975 Structures : 3,734 Occupied : 3,853 Lots : 55,850 Suggested demolition : 1,763 Unoccupied : 11,312

Source: www.motorcitymapping.org, 2017

of poor neighbourhood access to fresh, unpro- priority for all city stakeholders to seek to re- cessed foods, and high rates of hunger, obe- verse the decline and usher in stability through sity and diet-related illness69 (DBCFSN, 2008). economic revival, addressing land use issues, Then, in 2012, the Detroit City Plan was updat- improving city services, and fostering civic en- ed to feature urban agriculture as a desirable gagement (DEGC, 2012). Lastly, in 2013 the City activity, acknowledging the environmental, adopted its frst ever urban agriculture zoning economic and social benefts. Urban agricul- ordinance71, thereby formally permitting, pro- ture also features in the 2013 Detroit Future moting and regulating certain types of food City Strategic Framework70, which makes it a production as a viable land use.

69. The food security policy acknowledged at the most accessible stores in the city were party stores, dollar stores, fast food restaurants and gas stations. While most neighbourhoods had a grocery store within reasonable distance, they tended to stock very limited quality fresh, unprocessed foods — and many people could not reach stores selling healthier foods due to lack of a car and poor public transportation (DBCFSN, 2008).

70. Development of the Detroit Future City Strategic Framework was led by the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, a non-proft organization that works closely with the City of Detroit and other partners. Implementation is driven by the DFC Implementation Ofce, an independent non-proft organization governed by a board of directors and funded by the Kresge Foundation, Erb Family Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Michigan State Housing Development Authority and Americana Foundation.

71. A second ordinance on raising livestock within the city has been drafted and is expected to be adopted in 2017.

64 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

The adoption of the urban agriculture or- The ordinance provides defnitions for key ur- dinance was of key signifcance because al- ban agriculture terms and determines whether though vegetable growing in the city was not each can be practiced by default (‘by right’, i.e. illegal prior to 201372, neither was it a recog- only requiring a permit) or with special permis- nized land use within the city’s existing zoning sion (‘conditional’, requiring more extensive ordinances. This meant it was not possible site review). Activities that are generally al- for the City to sell vacant public land for food lowed, either by right or conditionally, include growing purposes. With no regulatory frame- urban gardens (under one acre, for personal, work, there was no way of knowing whether commercial or group use), urban farms (over produce was safe or laced with heavy metals one acre for personal, commercial or group from contaminated soil, and there was no ba- use), greenhouses, and hoophouses. Farmers’ sis for arbitrating in disputes between farm- markets, hydroponics, aquaponics and aqua- ers and non-farming neighbours. Moreover, culture are generally prohibited in residential as urban agriculture gained momentum in areas, but may be permitted in some, either ‘by the 2000s across the US, some afuent, white right’ or on a ‘conditional’ basis. people were returning to the city to farm, in some cases seeking to acquire public land to The ordinance also contains clauses on nuisance establish for-proft enterprises. Often they ne- caused by urban farming and the procedures for glected to consult — or even consider — the establishing a new food growing initiative. predominantly black residents who had devel- oped their own visions for land use. There was This case study examines the processes that a clear need for formal procedures to ensure paved the way for Detroit’s frst urban agricul- equitable and just farming for all interested ture ordinance, the policy development pro- parties (Morrell, forthcoming). cess, and implementation to date. It shows how Detroit was able to overcome the institu- tional barrier of the Michigan Right to Farm Act I think urban agriculture is regarded not to have authority over urban agriculture — yet as real agriculture but more of a kind of implementation has been hampered by en- soft community based activity and [is] not trenched perceptions, distrust and lack of un- taken seriously yet as a viable means of derstanding, both within the city government production and an economic driver. And and the farming community. I think that’s because we haven’t go!en there yet. And we are still trying to. There THE NEED TO REGULATE URBAN AGRI- are a few, but very few, who are engaged CULTURE IN DETROIT in urban agriculture and able to do it for a living. So that is part of the learning that The impetus for developing an urban agricul- we still have to get to, but that – just be- ture ordinance came from a senior planner cause it hasn’t yet reached that level yet – with the Detroit City Planning Commission, doesn’t mean it is not an important part of a body of nine commissioners that is served what happens in our community. by staf in the Legislative Policy Division and that is responsible for the city’s zoning ordi- nances. The planner, who was involved with Ofcal employed by the the food growing community in a personal City of Detroit

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 65 DETROIT

Seeding Day (Photo: Earthworks Urban Farm, a project of Capuchin Soup Kitchen)

capacity, noticed that urban agriculture was and representatives of several city depart- increasingly popular, and that businesses and ments74 (City of Detroit, 2013b). social entrepreneurs were proposing large- scale farms in the city (e.g. Recovery Park and SECURING EXEMPTION FROM STATE LAW Hantz Farms73). They approached the com- missioners and made the case for creating a The frst step was to research similar ordinanc- legal framework for it. es across the US, as well as agriculture policy in Having obtained the commissioners’ agree- the state of Michigan. It quickly emerged that ment, in 2009 the planner formed the urban the Michigan Right to Farm Act represented a agriculture workgroup to begin drawing up an major barrier to Detroit’s autonomy and au- ordinance. The original workgroup was made thority to regulate urban agriculture. The Right up of actors from organizations with a history to Farm Act protects commercial farm opera- of working on community agriculture projects tions in Michigan from nuisance complaints 75

73. Recovery Park is non-proft organization formed in 2008 to provide opportunities for ex-ofenders and recovering addicts, who usually face barriers to employment. Its model includes a 60 acre farm project (of which 35 acres are city land), produce from which is sold through a for-proft sister entity. Hantz Farms purchased 140 acres of city land from the City in 2012. The land was originally intended for the world’s largest urban farm but a strategy change — possibly infuenced by resistance from small-scale urban gardeners and their allies — led to its development as commercial tree-growing operation.

74. Initial workgroup members were representatives from Detroit Black Community Food Security Network; the Greening of Detroit; Earthworks Urban Farm; Michigan State University; ; and City departments, including Planning and Development; Recreation; Health and Wellness, Promotion; and, Buildings, Safety, Engineering and Environmental.

75. The Right to Farm Act was enacted in 1981 in the wake of complaints against established farm operations by people who had migrated to the countryside following the economic decline of Detroit and the 1967 riots. Many found the reality of rural life fell short of their bucolic lifestyle dreams; the noise, dust, smell and light pollution of large-scale agricultural operations was a nuisance. After a number of established farmers lost lawsuits brought by newcomers, the Michigan Farm Bureau lobbied for legal protection.

66 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

as long as they adhere to a set of voluntary per se, the Farm Bureau would entertain no Generally Agreed Agricultural and Manage- discussion of amending the Right to Farm Act, ment Practices (GAAMPs)76. What is more, the since opening it up for discussion might result Right to Farm Act explicitly supersedes any lo- in farmers having to cede hard-won ground cal government rules, regulations or ordinanc- over other aspects. es relating to agriculture across the whole of the state, making no distinction between rural To Farm Bureau representatives, the Right to and urban settings77. While some people have Farm Act was sacred. But for the City of Detroit, argued — and continue to argue — that the local authority was sacred. A series of further Right to Farm Act provided an inherent ‘right meetings took place as the actors sought a to farm’ to urban farmers and was therefore solution that would allow Detroit to move for- in their interests (as discussed below), for the ward with its ordinance without compromising City of Detroit it meant that any city ordinance the interests of Farm Bureau members and relating to agriculture would be unenforceable large agribusinesses, or the safety net provid- under state law. ed to them by GAAMPs.

It was clear that Detroit would need to secure Eventually, at a meeting of the Michigan Com- exemption from the Right to Farm Act before mission of Agriculture and Rural Development work on the draft ordinance could continue. in December 201178, MDARD proposed an ad- Following an approach from the senior plan- ministrative fx that would leave the Right to ner, the Michigan Department for Agriculture Farm Act unchanged but amend the preface to and Rural Development (MDARD) convened the GAAMPs with the wording: a high-level meeting of Detroit City Planning Commission members, members of Detroit’s “This GAAMP does not apply in municipalities ordinance working group, and representa- with a population of 100,000 or more in which tives of the Michigan Farm Bureau, which rep- a zoning ordinance has been enacted to allow resents the state’s large-scale farming sector. for agriculture provided that the ordinance An interviewee from MDARD said that while designates existing agricultural operations there was sympathy for Detroit’s predicament present prior to the ordinance’s adoption as and no objection to enabling urban agriculture legal non-conforming uses as identifed by the

76. There are eight GAAMPs covering: manure management and utilization; pesticide utilization/pest control; nutrient utiliza- tion, care of farm animals; cranberry production; site selection and odour control for new and expanding livestock facilities; irrigation water use; and farm markets. The GAAMPs are the responsibility of the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Each GAAMP is reviewed annually to take into account new scientifc knowledge and environmental stewardship technologies.

77. The Right to Farm Act supersedes local rules following a 1999 amendment that was needed because rural residents had taken to lobbying township local authorities to change land use zoning from agricultural to residential use, so that pre-exist- ing farm operations would have to close. The Right to Farm Act makes no distinction between rural and urban settings since at the time farming was an exclusively rural occupation and no-one foresaw that within a few years a new breed of urban farmer would start cultivating land within the city limits.

78. In the weeks before this administrative fx was proposed, two State Senators, Virgil Smith (Democrat) and Joe Hune (Repub- lican), prepared a Bill seeking to amend the Right to Farm Act itself to exempt of 600,000 or more. The Bill was not introduced because, according to a statement on Senator Smith’s website, MDARD had asked the Senators to wait until after the Agriculture Commission meeting on December 14 so that it could propose an ‘administrative fx’ that would leave the Right to Farm Act intact (Smith, 2011).

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 67 DETROIT

Right to Farm Act for purposes of scale and of the Michigan Small Farm Council, which was type of agricultural use.”79 (MDARD, 2011). formed in the wake of the 2011 amendment to advocate for small farmers’ rights, the admin- This solution was satisfactory to the Farm Bu- istrative fx paved the way for an even more reau. Detroit City Planning Commissioners signifcant change to the GAAMPs in 2014 con- also agreed as an initial, intermediate step, al- cerning livestock farming in residential areas though they did raise concerns about its legal- — both rural and urban. ity, prompting verbal reassurance by a repre- sentative of the Attorney General’s ofce that it While the Detroit City Planning Commission was within the scope of the Right to Farm Act80. no longer regards the solution to be interim and is not pushing for a statutory exemption The motion to amend the preface of the via the Right to Farm Act itself, the Michigan GAAMPs — and thus to provide Detroit with a Small Farm Council maintains that it was not de facto exemption from the Right to Farm Act legal for the GAAMPs to be amended in order — was carried at the same meeting. The rea- to change the meaning of the Right to Farm sons for this unusual haste are not recorded, Act. Consequently, it believes that many ur- but the MDARD interviewee suggested it was ban farmers have lost their ‘right to farm’ and because of the presence of Detroit City Plan- claims the change was used to force Detroiters 81 ning Commissioners who could give interim to give up farm animals . The Michigan Small agreement there and then. However, this did Farm Council has continued to campaign for mean there was no opportunity for public com- the amendments to be reversed. ment, as is the norm during the annual cycle for GAAMPs amendments that runs from late DRAWING UP THE ORDINANCE August to February. As a result, there has been uncertainty among small-scale farmers about Once the institutional barrier posed by the their rights — not only in Detroit but also Right to Farm Act had been overcome, the in other urban areas with populations over workgroup — now expanded to include a rep- 100,000. According to Wendy Banka, president resentative of MDARD and some other orga-

79. The 100,000 population threshold meant the GAAMPs wording applied to seven cities: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Warren, Ster- ling Heights, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Flint.

80. The Detroit City Planning Commission’s doubts on the legality of the administrative fx persisted despite the reassurances, and were fuelled by Professor John Mogk of Wayne State University School of Law, who believed that only statutory exemp- tion from the Right to Farm Act would be legally watertight (Mogk et al., 2010). Moreover, it later emerged that there was no formal or written ruling on the matter from the Attorney General himself (Todd & Underwood, 2012). On the request of the Detroit City Planning Commission, Senators Smith and Hune wrote to the Attorney General in early 2012 to request a formal ruling (Smith & Hune, 2012). The Attorney General’s ofce took a year to respond — and the response, when it fnally arrived, was that the Attorney General declined to give an opinion. No reason was given, but there has been conjecture that if the Agriculture Commission had used administrative fxes over other matters, an opinion from the Attorney General could either call these other cases into question or confrm them as precedent. As of late 2016 there has been no legal challenge to the amendment to the GAAMPs preface, nor to Detroit’s urban agriculture ordinance. The Detroit City Planning Commission no longer regards MDARD’s solution to be interim and is not pushing for a statutory exemption via the Right to Farm Act itself.

81. According to the Detroit City Planning Commission, rearing farm animals was never legal in Detroit, but according to mem- bers of the Michigan Small Farm Council, Detroiters’ ‘right to farm’ under the Right to Farm Act included the right to raise live- stock. The forthcoming ordinance on livestock farming seeks to resolve these diferences of opinion and their consequences for urban farmers.

68 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

Eartworks education programs (Photo: Earthworks Urban Farm, a project of Capuchin Soup Kitchen)

nizations82 — reconvened to start work on the For the frst urban agriculture ordinance the draft ordinance again. senior planner drew up proposals and the workgroup met all together at regular intervals Research into urban agriculture ordinances to provide feedback. The planner’s background of other cities in the US showed that the most as a community activist with experience in com- controversial aspect was keeping animals with- munity gardens, food security and food sover- in the city — indeed, in Detroit growing vege- eignty, including as an afliate with the Detroit tables and fruit was not illegal, it was just not Black Food Security Network, meant this indi- legalized. Keeping animals, on the other hand, vidual could bring pre-existing knowledge of was explicitly illegal. As a result, the senior the issues to the task and had credibility and planner who led the process decided to focus trust of the urban agriculture community — in frst on growing produce and to return to the addition to professional planning expertise. question of livestock in a separate ordinance at a later date. This would prevent the animal Once the draft ordinance had been drawn up, aspects causing the whole endeavour to fail. in September 2012 the Detroit City Planning Commission sought wider input from the com- A slightly diferent process was followed for munity that would actually use it, by holding the two ordinances. community meetings in three diferent parts of

82. The expanded workgroup was made up of representatives from the following organizations: Feedom Freedom Community Garden; Earthworks Urban Farm; Detroit Black Community Food Security Network; Greening of Detroit; Neighbors Building Brightmoor; Hantz Woodlands; Recovery Park; Genesis HOPE Community Development Corporation; Community Develop- ment Advocates of Detroit; Lower Eastside Action Plan; Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice; Green Door Initiative; Wayne State University (Law and Planning departments); Michigan State University; Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It also included as representatives from the following City departments: the Planning and Development Department; Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Department; Law Department; Detroit Water and Sewerage Department; and the Detroit City Council Research and Analysis Division (City of Detroit 2013b).

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 69 DETROIT

the city, in partnership with the Detroit Food IMPLEMENTING THE ORDINANCE Policy Council. The meetings — which were at- tended by almost 200 people in total — also The workgroup was intended to continue informed Detroit’s farmers about the forth- meeting as an ongoing advisory group on ur- coming ordinance. After this, the draft ordi- ban agriculture after the adoption of the frst nance was circulated to City departments for ordinance, in order to help the city devise review, before progressing to a public hearing regulations and policies related to agriculture at the City Planning Commission (City of De- and related programmes and activities (City of troit, 2013b), which voted to recommend that Detroit, 2013b). However at the time of writ- the City Council adopt the ordinance. The City ing, there was no ongoing formal governance Council did so, unanimously, in March 2013 and structure, although the Detroit Food Policy the ordinance came into efect the following Council continues to provide support to the se- month. After the ordinance was adopted the nior planner as they advocate for further policy City Planning Commission obtained an amend- reform in support of urban agriculture. ment to the Master Plan to include urban agri- culture as a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the To date, engagement from across municipal City Planning Commission still considers it to departments has been low, despite steps to be a pilot policy that is open to further amend- make the process more collaborative: sever- ments once it has been tried and tested. al departments were involved in the work- group83, the draft was circulated for com- The process towards the second ordinance, ment before adoption, and the ordinance on urban livestock, commenced in 2013. This itself requires site plans to be reviewed by time, according to the City interviewee, the the departments of Planning and Develop- senior planner for the Detroit City Planning ment, Public Works, Water and Sewage, and Commission met with stakeholders separate- other agencies if deemed necessary (City of ly rather than holding workgroup meetings, Detroit, 2013a). An interviewee attributed so as to avoid uncomfortable encounters be- the low engagement largely to lack of un- tween those keeping livestock illegally and city derstanding about what urban agriculture departments responsible for enforcing the entails and how to support it; this individual current ban. This encouraged the farmers to acknowledged that inter-departmental ed- be open about their activities and their needs. ucation eforts had been insufcient84. For The urban livestock ordinance, which contains many Detroit ofcials there is an entrenched both zoning and animal control elements, has perception that development and housing not yet been passed, but the Planning Com- are suitable land uses within a city and agri- mission expects it to go before the City Council culture is not — even though at present the in 2017. For this ordinance, a Council member City is not in an economic position to support has agreed to act as champion. ambitious development projects.

83. See footnote 57.

84. The interviewee said that it plans to allow several months between the passing of the livestock ordinance and its entry into force in order to educate city departments and ensure there is a smooth, transparent process in place, that is understood both within the City Council and by the public. The need for an extended period before implementation was not anticipated for the frst ordinance.

70 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

subject to another set of rules that are opaque and bureaucratic (Hester, 2016). We are still working, we are still tweaking that policy, and I have always said that it is really a pilot policy, so that as we work, As for farmers, there is somewhat paradoxical we work out what is working or what is evidence on the impact of the ordinance. On not working in the community, or what the one hand, take-up of permits for ‘by-right’ is not working on the city side that we projects has reportedly been low. Some people need to amend or change. As our learning who have practiced urban agriculture covertly about urban agriculture and how the pol- for many years, and with no enforcement is- icy works or doesn’t evolves, we change sues, see acquiring a permit as a waste of time the policy. and money — the cash-strapped city is unlike- ly to pursue and sanction permit-less farmers. On the other hand, there are anecdotal reports Ofcal employed by the that the number of registered urban gardens City of Detroit in Detroit has continued to grow since 201387, as would-be gardeners are emboldened by the The procedures for making publicly-owned existence of a regulatory framework and no land available for food growing has also been longer feel compelled to hide their food grow- a source of tension, with the Detroit Land Bank ing projects — whether they hold a permit or Authority’s85 current processes seen to be over- not (Sands, 2015). This would indicate that per- ly complex and opaque. The Detroit Food Poli- mit take-up may not be a fair indicator of the cy Council is championing improved processes ordinance’s success, and that ultimately the since, at present, the process is neither easy City has realized much of its aim merely in es- nor transparent. Mayor Mike Duggan86 has tablishing this regulatory framework. stated a preference for vacant land to be put in the hands of local residents, but there has been The Detroit City Planning Commission, mean- some concern in the media that piecemeal sell- while, has the authority to amend the ordi- of of land for small, non-proft food growing nance as it deems necessary, but there is no projects will prevent the acquisition of large public information on indicators or procedures areas for commercial farming that will create for monitoring the impacts. jobs and tax dollars (Gallagher, 2015). From the perspective of some small-scale farmers, how- SUMMARY OF ENABLERS ever, it seems developers and proponents of large-scale commercial projects are receiving The senior planner within the Detroit City Plan- preferential treatment, while residents who ning Commission was a key fgure in initiating wish to farm land in their neighbourhood are the urban agriculture ordinance and enabling

85. The Detroit Land Bank Authority is the agency responsible for returning Detroit’s vacant, abandoned, and foreclosed prop- erty to productive use.

86. Mayor Duggan took ofce in January 2014 and has announced that he will stand for re-election in 2017.

87. Figures were not available, but Keep Growing Detroit previously reported that its Garden Resource Program supported a network of about 1,400 gardens and farms in 2015, with almost 20,000 Detroiters engaged in some capacity (Sands, 2015).

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 71 DETROIT

its development. With experience in profes- ternative to amending the Act that would not sional urban planning and in the urban farm- compromise the interests either of Michigan ing community, this individual was regarded as Farm Bureau members or of the City of Detroit. a legitimate leader both in the eyes of City and The second potential barrier was the likelihood of community actors. Consequently, the senior of livestock becoming a contentious issue in planner secured the participation of a variety policy development and adoption, in response of city and state departments and representa- to which livestock was hived of from the initial tives of the farming community. They also had ordinance. in-depth awareness of the concerns, priorities and working methods of both groups. The convening of the workgroup ensured the ordinance was developed through a multi-ac- For its part, the City Planning Commission en- tor, multi-sector process. This secured the par- abled the planner to initiate the ordinance’s de- ticipation of actors who would be most afect- velopment by granting its support, both for the ed by it, and met their needs. However, neither proposal and approval of the draft ordinance, this participatory process nor subsequent out- thereby helping to secure the City Council’s reach eforts have enabled extensive take-up backing. Indeed, the institutional home of the of permits or widespread engagement across ordinance within the City Planning Commis- city departments. sion — of all city ordinances — is helpful as this body’s recommendations hold The workgroup has not continued as a gover- some sway with the City Council. nance body though the implementation stage, despite initial plans. This may have contributed Policymaking was research- and evidence- to some actors’ disengagement, although the based; the planner reviewed other cities’ or- Detroit Food Policy Council has at least partial- dinances and learned from their experiences. ly flled the gap through its advocacy work, and This not only helped ensure the ordinance was the senior planner is in charge of monitoring appropriate and technically sound, but it also and updating the ordinance as required. led to the identifcation of barriers that were subsequently overcome. The frst of these The openness to learn from experience and was the realization that the Michigan Right to adapt the policy accordingly, together with re- Farm Act posed an institutional barrier to de- newed educational eforts around the impend- velopment and implementation of a city-level ing livestock ordinance, might enable greater ordinance; this was overcome by fnding an al- engagement in the future.

72 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? DETROIT

TABLE 5: KEY ACTORS AND THEIR ROLES

ACTORS ROLES

Senior planner with Detroit • Initiated and led ordinance development process City Planning Commission • Initiated discussions about RTFA with Michigan Department of Agricul- ture and Rural Development Detroit City Planning • Guardian of City planning ordinances Commission • Gave approval for draft urban agriculture ordinance to be developed • Gave approval for GAAMPs preface amendment to enable ordinance • Recommended adoption of ordinance by Detroit City Council Detroit City Council • Adopted ordinance Michigan Department of • Mediated process to overcome barrier of the Right to Farm Act Agriculture and Rural Development Michigan Farm Bureau • Represents big farm interests in Michigan • Refused to open up Right to Farm Act for review • Agreed to the proposed GAAMPs amendment Michigan Small Farm Council • Represents collective interests of small-scale farmers in Michigan, fol- lowing exclusion from GAAMPs amendment discussions • Campaigns for GAAMPs amendment to be reversed Small scale urban farmers • Growing food within communities for many years and community farming • Some participated in work group and consultations groups Entrepreneurs proposing • Proposed large-scale farms large-scale urban farms • Participated in workgroup Various city departments • Participated in workgroup, but generally low engagement in implemen- tation • Some departments have a role in site plan review Detroit Land Bank Authority • Responsible for returning vacant land to use • Makes decisions on sale of land for food production Detroit Food Policy Council • Advocates for simpler, more transparent Land Bank and permitting de- cisions, to enable farming projects of all sizes

CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? 73